AIRPORT SUPPORTERS

There will not be a meeting on Easter weekend, but we will meet again on the 26^th.   Congressman Tim Jones will be at this meeting also.  

PAVEMENT ANALYSIS

Just a little review about pavement. 

Yesterday, a company that does pavement analysis studies for the FAA was at the airport conducting an assessment of the pavement conditions at the St. Clair Regional Airport.  When they surveyed the common use taxiway, they made the comment that they rate pavement conditions between 1 and 100, and that the common use taxiway appears to be about a 2.   That is a 2 out of a possible 100, that is 1 point above the lowest rating out of a possible 100.   Just to remind everyone of the comments by Ron Blum from the city council meeting in Jan 2013.

“Mayor Blum stated but before we do any repairs, so to speak to the runway surfaces, he would invite every St. Clair resident, every county resident, everyone in the state of Missouri, in the United States to go down and look at that runway and then go travel our city streets and tell me which one is in worse repair.”

What is misleading about the mayor’s statement is that he is only talking about the runway, but what do the Feds say?

Airport Facilities to be Maintained.

This section applies to all airport facilities shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) as initially dedicated to aviation use by an instrument of transfer or federal grant agreement. Essentially this means that the sponsor cannot discontinue maintenance of a runway or taxiway or any other part

of the airport used by aircraft until the FAA formally relieves the sponsor of the federal maintenance obligation. The federal obligations of the sponsor remain in force throughout the

useful life of the facility, but no longer than 20 years – except for land that specifically obligates

the airport in perpetuity.

The insurance provider for the city just recently has paid one tenant over a thousand dollars for propeller repairs due to FOD.  This was a brand new out of the box propeller, put in use for about 20 minutes, and was damaged.  

NEXT MEETING

The St. Clair airport supporters will meet April 12^th at 3:00.   This is going to be a potluck deal, we will check with Bubba to see if the Shrimp can make it on Sat.  We might still need a few brats and buns. 

Congressman Tim Jones, the speaker of the Missouri House will be there for a short while.  Congressman Jones and a couple of airport supporters met with Amy Ludwig, from MoDOT Aviation, on Tuesday in Jefferson City.  Amy Ludwig gave the congressman a description of the situation at St. Clair, after which the congressman asked Amy Ludwig, what do we have to do to keep the airport open?  The congressman also stated that he wants to see the airport stay open.  

Anyone that wants to get a clear picture of the airport situation, is welcome to attend.  

AIRPORT SUPPORTERS

Supporters of the St. Clair airport met Sunday to discuss the airport and other aviation issues.  The group decided to meet on a regular basis to discuss and inform interested parties of the situation at the airport.  

Skipped meeting

Both the meeting agenda and the minutes from the city council meeting that dealt with the NPIAS, are not listed on the city website.   They skipped that meeting.   Maybe they just forgot!

http://stclairmo.com/coc/index.php/archives-menu

REQUEST FOR A MEETING

The city is protesting the request for an extension in order to amend the tenant’s formal complaint.  The local news publication is reporting that the city is stating that the meeting requested cannot be substantiated.  The request for a meeting was made by Missouri Congressman Tim Jones Eureka office on behalf of the complainants.  Two attempts by phone were placed to the city, and the person responded with, I’ll take the message.   The city did not respond.  

CONTACT

Readers can contact the blog by e-mail for additional information without having to display private information

VIEWERS

The blog readers have been increasing.  There are readers in 21 states, including the District of Columbia.  In Missouri, there are readers in from 28 locations, 22 of which have viewed on multiple occasions. The second largest group of viewers come from  Wichita Kansas.  Of the 21 states, 18 have multiple hits.  Since Feb. 26^th there have been 1150 page views, with 216 unduplicated visitors.In Missouri the largest group of viewers is from Washington  mo, 15 page hits from Jefferson City.

WHAT IS LOGICAL AND REASONABLE?

A local news publication has quoted City administrator Rick Childers in reference to the NPIAS, as reasonable and logical in the closure process.  I did not see anything in the documents from the FAA that referred to dropping out of the NPIAS or refusing $600,000 of entitlement grant dollars to the Federal Government.  Entitlement is a key word, these are funds that St. Clair is entitled to receive, and do not have to compete for.  The city refused these funds which are granted for maintenance and evelopment, but in a response to the last inspection report by MoDOT.

DESIGN DEFICIENCIES:
13. Runway 02 Approach Surface — Trees and various signs along Interstate 44 violate the 20:1 slope. Trees are within the 7:1 transitional surface along the edges of this approach surface.
14. Runway 20 Approach Surface — Trees are within the 20:1 slope. Trees are within the 7:1 transitional surface along the edges of this approach surface.
15. Runway Primary Surface — Trees and brush are within this surface at the Runway 20 end. High ground at this same location needs verification. Trees, ground, t-hangar, signs, and wind cone are within the 7:1 transitional surface along the sides of the primary surface.
16. Runway Object Free Area - Nonstandard runway object free area at the Runway 20 end. Trees and brush continue to violate the clearing requirements of this surface, which measures 250 feet wide and extends 240 feet beyond each runway end.
17. Runway Safety Area - A concrete box culvert runs under the runway safety area on the north end of the runway, approximately 40 feet north of the Runway 20 threshold. The drainage ditch and opening to the culvert on the west side is within the runway safety area in violation of AC 150/5300-13: Drainage ditches may not be located within the safety area. The runway safety area shall be cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations.
18. The asphalt taxilane pavement leading from the apron to the one remaining hangar is in poor condition. The pavement has severe alligator cracking and has failed in several areas. The pavement condition also presents a foreign object debris (FOD) hazard to aircraft due to deterioration of the asphalt. The hangar taxi lane does not have a center line.

The city administrator replied,

DESIGN DEFICIENCIES:
We do not have the ability or resources to correct deficiencies in design which were presumably approved at some point in the past. 

WHERE IS THE CITY HEADED

The local news publication has published a statement by the mayor as to pursuing the closure of the airport until they get it closed.  It is clear by the response from the FAA last December that certain compliance conditions will have to be met in order for the FAA to continue the consideration of the closure request.  One of the conditions is to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public to make it available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination.  The FAA also determined that to mean the Aviation public.   It is also obvious that the city lacks an understanding of this concept.  Their actions demonstrate a plan to do the opposite. 

If you were to take a look at where the city is now and where they need to be, you would realize that the city’s plan is not working.  From the aviation point of view, it appears that the city is actually going backwards.  With little to no aviation expertise, the city is trying to invent a new way to close an airport.  The city has produced documents that state their redevelopment plan, and their closure request, and both of these documents in reality provide documentation that the city is not living up to its Federal requirements to operate the airport. 

Until the city realizes they do not have an understanding of what is required, and can demonstrate that understanding, produce a plan to operate the airport as the FAA and the United States Congress intended, and prove that the plan is in place and working, closure is hopeless.
One high ranking FAA official put it this way, there is no support for the St. Clair plan, ANYWHERE, IN THE ENTIRE FAA ORGANIZATION.